Talk:Kim Jong Un/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Death of Kim Jong Nam

I don't think this article should say that Kim Jong Nam was assassinated until there is more confirmation. There are conflicting reports, as indicated by these sources: [1], [2], [3].--Jack Upland (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a BLP, let's keep rumors off it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we use an actual picture of him?

I've noticed this page always uses a sketch instead of a real picture of him. Why is that so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.212.82.137 (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is a free content work, we do not allow the use of non-free pictures when free imagery could be obtained, as is the case for nearly all living persons. As Jong-un is still alive and a publicly visible figure, it is possible to get a free photo of him, just none have come about as of yet. So we use a freely general sketch of him until we can get a free photo. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
This article may be dealing with an extrmist but you yourselves seem to be extremists in dealing with your stance on free content. w195.138.228.54 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see the FAQ above.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Still the old arguments... Many people have tried to explain that it is extremely difficult to obtain a free picture of him (which is the reason why we don't have one here) which would make him eligible to use an image under the fair use rationale. But there are a few users here who have, so far, blocked any initiative to find a solution. --Maxl (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If the people against the use of a non-free image are a "few users" then the people in favor are an even smaller number, as has been proven in both RfCs to date. If your argument in favor of using a non-free image were strong, it would garner more support. It hasn't. I'm very sorry, but that's reality. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The set of people who read or comment on Wikipedia pages is greater than those who participate in RfCs. That's the reality, and I'm not sorry.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • RfCs is how we handle disputes such as these. If you don't like how such disputes are handled, please seek to replace the RfC system with something you think would work. Both RfCs were run and handled properly. Nevertheless, if you feel you are right and everyone else is wrong, you are welcome to move to the next step of dispute resolution; WP:SEEKHELP. Until such time as you either replace the RfC system or figure out someway to overturn the result of two different RfCs, neither of which agreed to allow the use of non-free imagery to depict Kim Jong-un, the status quo is we aren't going to allow a non-free image, regardless of some vague silent majority that may or may not exist. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Since we're on this topic again, is there a possibility we could leave the sketch as the image that's displayed, but in the caption add something like "For a photograph of Kim Jong-un, see this image."? That would be a good compromise as it would link to a real image of KJU while respecting Wikipedia rules on non-free content. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  • First, this is called "deep linking". Second, apparently under U.S. law, this is considered a usage under fair use law. Therefore, no. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It appears to comply with Template:External_media. Specifically, the image is available online, it cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia due to copyright and NFCC issues, and from the ad nauseum posts about this topic, meets the third criterion that "readers will expect this type of media in the article". Per the template page, we could use this until a freely licensed image of him surfaces. Tonystewart14 (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The template documentation is not policy. Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, but from what I've read such a deep linking constitutes a usage under fair use law. Allowed under law? Yes. Allowed here on this article? No. It's not a question of whether we can technically do it. We can. The issue is the NFCC policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Hammersoft is not a lawyer. He's just a judge in the highest court.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
One, I remind you of Wikipedia:No personal attacks which says "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Two, I'm no judge here (not that we have judges, though the closest parallel is ArbCom). In fact, I have less privileges on this project than you do. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Please don't mistake irony for a personal attack. @ Jack: Wouldn't a judge be expected to be impartial? --Maxl (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Calling me a "judge in the highest court" is commenting on me. Quoting from Wikipedia:No personal attacks, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Further meta discussions on what might or might not be a personal attack are pointless. Either restrain yourself to commenting on content and not those with whom you disagree here or expect to have this escalated through dispute resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Not every comment on a person (or, account) is necessarily an attack. Please read beyond the introduction of the project page cited by you to find out what is an attack. --Maxl (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
You have repeatedly insulted people on this talk page in the past. You've repeatedly been pointed to WP:NPA. I strongly recommend you take that policy to heart. It's not hard. All you have to do is not comment on people. It's quite simple really. Just don't do it. Easy. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
No I did not. I just occasionally make known that I don't share your opinion. That's all. --Maxl (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It is frequently the case that people who violated the NPA/CIVIL policies believe they have not. It's a meta discussion that lacks merit. The overarching issue is this; do not comment on people making comments. Instead, comment on content. I strongly recommend you take that policy to heart. It's not hard. All you have to do is not comment on people. It's quite simple really. Just don't do it. Easy. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I wonder what you look like. Mercster (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I find it a little hard to believe there are absolutely NO free real photos of Kim Jong Un on the internet...

All photos of Kim are copyright, unless the owner says otherwise.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Surely there is a fair use justification for using a widely-published photo rather than a (free) propaganda image? 86.139.252.166 (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but we don't go by fair use, be go by Wikipedia's non-free content policy which is purposely stricter than the fair use provisions of US law. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Was Kim Jong-un half-Russian?

Based on his father's nationality that he was Russian and Soviet (more likely half-Koryo-saram), can we presumably consider Kim Jong-il's children half-Russian including him as well? We noticed Kim Jong-un has his father's Russian heritage. 24.212.149.50 (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Only if you can find a reliable, published source that says so. General Ization Talk 01:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
No, he is Korean by ethnicity. The fact that his father was born in the Soviet Union and may or may not have held a Soviet passport doesn't make Kim Jong-un Russian. --188.99.140.78 (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Realigning sections "Early life and education" and "Family"

The sections "Early life and education" and "Family" need realignining. They were present the information 'independently' of each other (in both cases as if this is the first time the information is presented in the article; and the information does not entirely coincide.

  • his elder brother Kim Jong-chul was born in 1981, while his younger sister, Kim Yo-jong, is believed to have been born in 1987.
  • Kim Jong-un has one half-sister and an older full-brother. He also has a younger full-sister, Kim Yo-jong, who was believed to have been born in 1987. He also had a half-brother, Kim Jong-nam, who was reportedly assassinated with poison on 13 February 2017

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is messy. The information in the "Family" section is also awkwardly worded. This is then triplicated in the family tree that follows. I wonder if the information about brothers and sisters is necessary in the "Family" section...
I also noticed that the article had two different accounts of the birth of his daughter. There is one source (Chosun Ilbo) which claims he has two different daughters (from two different women). I think this is dubious. Most sources say there is one daughter but give conflicting birth dates. I will change this unless someone objects.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Jack. Glad you can make sense of it. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I've tidied it up a bit. On reflection, I've decided to keep the speculation about multiple children. The sources don't agree, and we shouldn't create a false consensus. Bizarrely enough, Rodman seems to be the only one with hard information. I've eliminated the references to the rest of his family, except for Yo Jong, who seems to have an ongoing close relationship with him. I've moved the material about his American uncle and aunt to North Korean defectors. I've moved the information about Jong Nam to sit with the previous mention. (We might need to add something more about him now.)--Jack Upland (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is the word "dictator" not on this page when according to all dictionary definitions he is?

By dictionary definition Kim Jong-un is a dictator, yet the word doesn't appear anywhere on this page except in reference URLs. Just "Chairman". This is illogical. Is NK keeping Wiki "clean"?

Merriam-Webster Dictionary - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictator a: a person granted absolute emergency power; b: one holding complete autocratic control: a person with unlimited governmental power. c: one ruling in an absolute (see absolute 2) and often oppressive way fascist dictators.

Cambridge Dictionary - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dictator a leader who has complete power in a country and has not been elected by the people. a person who gives orders and behaves as if they have complete power

Oxford Dictionary - https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dictator "A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force."

etc etc, of course I could go on.

Well, is there any evidence that he has absolute power? I've never seen any.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
search Kim jong un "absolute power", no shortage of news articles to choose from. Or, search Kim jong un "absolute power" site:.gov -- No shortage of Government pages. Or, search Kim jong un "absolute power" site:.edu -- No shortage of educational institution pages. Provide evidence that he DOESN'T yield absolute power, and explain to me how somebody who doesn't yield absolute power is free to execute military leaders with anti-aircraft cannon at his will? Looking at your wikipedia contributions they appear heavily biased towards removing anything negative about North Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.1.57.224 (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, this [4] shows that there is a range of views about Kim's power. There have been no major changes of policy since he replaced his father. As previously discussed, those accounts of executions are dubious. There are mountains of negative information about North Korea on Wikipedia. I'm just trying to remove things that are inaccurate or biased.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
No, you're _censoring_ facts and opposing established _dictionary definitions_. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.1.57.224 (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
See also [5].--Jack Upland (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
It is original research and synthesis to connect a label like "dictator" to a living person without any reliable sources explicitly stating that. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
That may be true, but it's also true that anybody can plug "dictator Kim Jung Un" into a search engine and see literally dozens of reliable sources doing exactly that. So I'm not sure why you bring this up. It looks to me from Google like virtually every source that discusses Kim in politics refers to him as a dictator at some time or another. "Original Research" is not using the term because Jack Upland wants to be personally convinced according to his understanding of the definition.24.198.110.136 (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not the "dictator" of this page! I don't think I have ever stopped anyone from describing Kim Jong Un as a dictator. As to sources, I have shown that there is disagreement among analysts as to how much personal power Kim actually has. If you see the definitions above, a dictator is a leader wielding absolute power. I didn't make this up. Sure, some journalists use "dictator" as a sloppy shorthand for "bad hombre running a rogue regime". But they are fake news. Some dudes operate based on a false dichotomy of democracy or dictatorship, ignoring the multiplicity of actual government forms. Sad. If this is going to be part of the article, then I think the best way would be along the lines of "Some analysts say that Kimbo is a dictator,[citation needed] while others argue that he operates as part of a collective leadership,[citation needed] while having special status as heir to the personality cult of his father and grandfather,[citation needed] and still others claim he is a puppet of a shadowy clique (or self-perpetuating oligarchy) that has run North Korea since its founding."[citation needed] But that's just my suggestion, and in the self-perpetuating oligarchy that is Wikipedia, I am a simple peasant.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes...NOT "supreme Leader", but dictator. Please get it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:4201:3CE0:29EC:5AE2:7D66:9156 (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

We don't use dictionary definitions to determine the terminology we use in a Wikipedia article. We use reliable, published sources specifically about our subject. If you can provide a reliable source that uses the term to refer to Kim Jong-un, than so can we. Otherwise, no. General Ization Talk 23:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

We can't get better images for this article

Since photography is a crime in North Korea, we may not get a better picture. So the thing on the top has a very low chance of achieving. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Photography is not a crime, and many people (including me) have taken photos in North Korea, many of which have been used by Wikipedia. But I agree, a Wikipedian is unlikely to get a chance to snap Kim Jong Un. The most likely possibility seems to be Kim visiting Russia and the Russian government releasing a free photo.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
A photo of an official statue seems preferable to a "photorealistic sketch". The photo of the statue actually looks more realistic than the sketch. I've inserted it at the top of this BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
That's actually a statue of a young Kim Jong Il (his father) - hence the glasses.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
It's now been reverted to the previous. The caption says "sketch", but to me it looks like far more than just a sketch. The source description says "photorealstic sketch", although no details of the media used are provided. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
This has always been a burning issue. I think it would be better to have nothing than this sketch. We could have a notice explaining that a "free" image is not available. Or we could have a picture of Pikachu. As it is, we have to face accusations that we are treating the dude like Mohammed or that we are North Korean hombres (which really hurts).--Jack Upland (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake. Now I am very motivated to get a correct picture. Will get back to you soon. The present image is awful, not least because it looks like he just went to Jenny Craig.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I'd go for the sea slug, although I realize that it has no obvious Muslim connection. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I just uploaded the pic at right.[[:File:Kim-jong un With Shoe.jpg|thumb|"Just uploaded this... but I just ain't gettin' no answer!"]]Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Shucks. And I always thought he wore something more Audrey Hepburn. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, if the dictator would publish more copyright-free photos then we would have more to choose from.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
What a heartless comment! Have you no sole? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI, this image is nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons.[6]Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I did think it looked Flickrwashed when searching on it earlier. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I sent an abuse report to Flickr using their online form:

I'm reporting abuse on the following page:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/147463525@N04/29883338246/

It was apparently published in a 2014 newspaper article, with a credit to "Korean Central News Agency/Reuters", so I don't see how it could be public domain, or how it could have been created in 2016.

Here's a link to the newspaper article:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/kim-jong-un-looks-things-redux-1461494

On the other hand, the U.S. is still technically in a state of war with North Korea, so maybe we don't respect their government's copyright?

Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I've just sent a fax to North Korea asking that they release a copyright-free image of KJU in high heels. If they do not comply, I will take further action.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Jack, your timing here is not brilliant? I think we might see some toys being thrown out of the cot. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I know we're all fishing for Kim Jay-Un in fishnets. (Australia, my beloved homeland, appointed a emissary for NK, Alexander Downer, who did indeed pose in fishnets - Google the image... if you dare.) I think if Kimbo is slugging it out with the Last Trumpeters, and possibly hard pressed, he will acquiesce to Wikipedia's reasonable request and ignore the pictures of bottoms I drew on the fax I sent, on the grounds that he doesn't want to fight on two fronts. I need to replace the toner cartridge for my fax machine, but I hope to replace it before Easter so I can receive any NK missive/missile that can resolve this crisis.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
LOL! - TheMagnificentist 12:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Reporters recently in N. Korea

Let's identify them and systematically write to them to get a photo. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to write to someone, write to David Guttenfelder, AP photographer. The problem is that professional photos of NK are a comparatively rare commodity, and photos of Kay Ju are even rarer, except those churned out in high volume by the NK propaganda machine. Many reporters have very limited access, and the boys and girls of the People's Internal Security Bureau are not likely to let a foreigner get a head shot of Kay Ju for fear that he might share the same fate of his lately departed bro.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
We've pursued this some in the past, but if you're interested in trying this, you might have better luck with someone who is more independent and won't have their images copyrighted by a major entity like AP. I've asked Jaka Parker in the past, and even had a Wikipedia admin follow up in the Indonesian language, and he said he thought he know where he might be able to get one but never did. Aram Pan might be another good person to ask. Tonystewart14 (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers. davidguttenfelder.com is blocked where I am, but I found Pan's email and will write to him.

There were tons of foreign reporters invited for the parade and unveiling of that new housing project. We're they allowed cameras? I forget. If so, surely, one of them can release a medium or high res pic of the man. It doesn't have to be a portrait he sat for. Just one from 50 m away with a good camera. That would give is decent cropped pic. You give me names and I'll do the emailing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Tony's right. Independent people would be better, and it might be a good idea to ask them if they don't have a photo, whether they can suggest someone who would release one.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, Jack. Were there independents at the events or only those employed by big media orgs? Anyhow, you name names, independents or anyone, and I'll write. I remember User:Hammersoft and others saying, "don't worry, events will happen and Western photographers will get pics, and that is why WP:NFCC #1 prohibits..." (or something like that) Well, they went, they snapped, and none became available. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
It might also be worth contacting NK News, which is independently owned. Contact details:[7].--Jack Upland (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I emailed those two people a couple of weeks ago. No reply. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kim Jong-un. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that I changed this link to a different source in the article to avoid the need for an archive link. The link initially didn't work for me, although it later did, but this will be better in any case. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Eventual use of non-free

If we knew that no free equivalent would become available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose for the next decade, would we then consider a non-free image today? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but we know this is not the case for Jong-un. We usually allow non-free for a living person if we know for sure that the person is purposely recluse and avoids being out in public, is incarcerated in jail and not allowed access to the public, or is purposely staying out of public site (such as on the run from the law). Jong-un meets none of those cases, the only argument that comes close is that it is costly and a red-tape nightmare for a person from a Western country to be at the right time and place to capture a picture of Jong-un. Unfortunately, cost and difficulty are not elements we consider in determining whether a free (as in speech) image could be created. --MASEM (t) 20:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Masem. I understand what you are saying from "We usually allow..." onward.
As for "Yes, but we know this is not the case for Jong-un.", I'm not sure I agree. We didn't get one during the past decade, and considering a whole bunch of reporters were just there and no image came in, I think (hope I'm wrong) we can expect another decade without one. In fact, I'll bet you a barnstar that by May 18, 2027, we still don't have one. Accept? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
We may very well not have one by then, but you're missing the point. It's not about how long we have to wait, it is as long as the possibly still exists one can be taken. In ten years, that possibility hasn't changed one bit, so there's no reason to consider non-free yet. But, very hypothetically, lets say NK decides to declare war on the whole world, shutters its borders, prevents any travel across the border, and disables all communications beyond its borders. Now while he's still alive, the possibility has dropped to near-zero, and then that's a case we can discuss the possibility of a non-free. But while NK still has a reasonably open border policy (albeit a red-tape nightmare), a possibility of a free image still exists. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Anything is possible, but we all probably agree that the possibility is near zero, right? Policy does say "...no free equivalent is available...", the "is" meaning right now. Even if it said "...no free equivalent is expected to become available...", with the possibility being so low, one would think a low-res non-free would be reasonable. And this resistance against a non-free is for what? To comply with the rationale "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The reason myself and others are sticking on this point is that the WMF aims to be a free content encyclopedia that can be reused anywhere in the world for any purpose; keeping clean of copyright is secondary but a useful benefit. The use of non-free hurts that purpose, but there are times where non-free is beneficial to the educational nature of the work that we allow it (aka the non-free use rationale). We are not against non-free use, but we are against the use where there is the potential to use free media instead. Jong-un is a rare case of how strict we need to be on this point, as we give on this, it creates a slippery slope that editors will argue "oh, it's so difficult but not impossible to get a free, let's use a non-free" which has all sorts of potential for non-free abuse and hurt the project both in its free mission goal and towards copyright issues.
Keep in mind NFCC#1 has two cases that both must be shown to be unmeetable to allow for a non-free: the lack of a free equipment, and the lack of a possibility to create a free equipment. On the first case, I assure you that a search in the talk archives here shows that we have fruitlessly searched for a free image and found none, and some have even approached holders of copyrighted images for re-release as free ones with no luck. You can't prove a negative but we're certain there does not exist a free image of Jong-un anywhere. So one case is met. If Jong-un died tomorrow, the possibility of creating a free image has vanished, and so we can immediately use a non-free. But he's not dead, and the potential has not changed at all in the last ten years, and there's no sign that potential will change in the next ten years. So the second test is not met, and using a non-free now fails NFCC#1. --MASEM (t) 22:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyhow, my intention is not to open the can of worms again. I just wanted to know about the next ten years, and you've answered that. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Masem. A great takeaway from what you wrote above is the slippery slope. This article serves as a great, solid, bright line precedent sort of thing. That has value. I think I understand now and am swayed. Cheers to you, and hammersoft, and all the others who have been making this argument for so long. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
We have discussed this before. The "no fair use" editors have been coy about admitting their position is that they would never accept a fair use image.
By the way, getting into North Korea is not a "red-tape nightmare". I got a visa after sending the scan of a passport. The problem is that the movement of visitors is strictly controlled. I was there during a parade, but we were down at the DMZ when it occurred, no doubt deliberately. Journalists' movements are controlled as well, but they have been given access to some major events which Kim attends. Obviously there is high security around such events because of the threat of "decapitation" strikes. I highly doubt that a random tourist would get access.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jack. That is so cool that you were there. Something to tell the grandkids. Say, did you happen to visit Pothonggang Department Store? I started that ages ago and would love an image. In fact, images of ordinary things would be fantastic for articles. Mailboxes, TV remote controls, washing machines, fridges, fire hydrants, turnstiles, elevator buttons, toilets, that sort of thing. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
No, I went to a different department store, but we weren't allowed to take photos. I didn't take any photos of ordinary things as there was nothing exceptional about them.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Jack, I think you underestimate how special such photos would be in articles. You've been to such places and no commons uploads? See Bulldozer's lead image. Tell me that is not better than seeing a boring ol' Caterpillar? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I and many other people have uploaded photos to commons, but mainly cityscapes...--Jack Upland (talk) 06:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Jack. I guess you uploaded under a different account. I see nothing for yours. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said uploaded to Wikipedia. I used some in the History of North Korea and the Korean conflict pages. (But I am sure some were uploaded into Commons — perhaps they were deleted.) But we really have a lot of photos. If you browse through Cities of North Korea you will see we have photos of most of the cities. But we don't have one of Kim.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I seem them, Jack. Nice! And wow, we do indeed have a lot of NK pics. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I think we would be more reasonable about a nonfree if all these stories about foreign non-journalists having no chance at access to Jong-un was something that could be verified in official documentation. I fully believe that NK keep foreigners on tight control from some areas or events, but I've seen nothing to say to suggest they have made it official policy to keep them far far far far away from Jong-un all the time, beyond personal experiences like this. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand, Masem. You say he meets none of "...We usually allow non-free for a living person if we know for sure that the person is purposely recluse and avoids being out in public...purposely staying out of public site (such as on the run from the law)..." Well, he's pretty darn close from the point of view of a photographer. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Except we have thousands of press photos that show he clearly has no problem being photographed. Obviously yes, press people that photograph him likely have to have their credentials checked, they're probably given a full-body weapons check, their equipment is carefully scanned, they likely sign a bunch of paperwork, and still have to clear the images with the NK gov't before publication; I do very much doubt they can walk up freely and grab a shot, in contrast with most Western leaders. But what is lacking is why can't a random member of the public that is in the country get at least a far-enough away shot of him? There's lots of good rational reasons that have been given, many which I believe are likely founded in truth, but there's no hard evidence that shows that a random member of the public will never ever be able to grab a photo of him. If someone can show that's actually something NK goes out of their way to enforce, then there's a must better rational to say that the possibility of getting a free image is impossible by a random member of the public, and we can use non-free. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, my friend. So our only chance is getting someone in the media to release a photo. We write. They do not even reply. Nerts to them. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Within non-free, we do recognize that we cannot expect non-WPians to compel to release media for free; editors should still try, and if there has been a press member in the past that has been able to donate freely, that should be a route evaluated too. But here, we have clearly shown it difficult to get a press photo put into a free license, which is why I say that we have more than reasonably satisfied that "no free image currently exists". We just haven't affirmed beyond a doubt that no random person can get a free image of Jong-un. If that can be shown with reasonable evidence, there's room to allow non-free. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Understood, Masem. The non-free thing is out of my mind now. I've turned my attention to wanting someone in the media who took some shots to provide an image to commons with OTRS. However, I realize that such people would probably have been working for their agency, and so their photos would be owned by the agency, and not them. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I'm not trying to disaude or argue, just trying to help figure out how we can navigate this better, and hope you do succeed in getting a free license. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
No worries at all, dear Masem. You've helped me enormously to understand. And if I ever see a photo with an actual name rather than an agency, I will write at once. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Anna, there is a photo of Kim Jong-un credited only to "Ed Jones" (Chief AFP photographer for North and South Korea, based in Seoul) in this BBC article. Maybe worthwhile asking Ed (@edwardesjones on twitter) if he can release a photo under an appropriate license. BabelStone (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Nice find, BabelStone. Thank you. Twitter is blocked here in China, so could someone else tweet him if that's how twitter works? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

We should be careful about our use of the words "image" and "photo". The first word is broader than the second. A talented portrait artist working in a hyper-realistic style could create an original image, or painting, of Kim Jong-un based on study of many photos rather than copying one photo. If that artist donated the image under an acceptable Creative Commons license, then this problem would be solved. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that's an interesting point, Cullen328. Do you know of any examples of other individuals that have had this done on their Wikipedia articles? That way, we could know more specifically how to avoid the derivative works issue you identify. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not aware of any comparable cases, for obvious reasons, Tonystewart14. If an artist was to create a portrait after studying dozens of photos, I do not see how the resulting portrait could be considered derivative. But I am not an expert in such matters. I actually discussed this with a very good artist but sadly she has serious health problems and cannot help now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
To editors Cullen328 and Tonystewart14: Another issue is that artists do not want to work for free, even if that single hour of their life creates an attributed drawing of Kim that is viewed millions times a year. Sometimes I question their sense. See the defunct Wikipedia:Donated artwork. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure this would solve the problem, in any case. The subjects who have a artistic portrait for the article almost always lived before the age of photography. There have been other attempt to use sketches for contemporary subjects — Susan Boyle, Colton Harris Moore — and these have always been controversial. People just want photographs.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Well Jack, photos sure are preferred. I know of a few articles that had/have drawings for ages. If there is no other choice, then a drawing would likely meet community approval, provided that it looked alright. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak: I should also add that the image only needs to be freely licensed, not free of cost. We could pay an artist a one-time fee if they are willing to license their work appropriately. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tonystewart14. Who is "we"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak: I just meant any Wikipedian willing to contribute financially to acquire an illustrated image of Kim Jong-un. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tonystewart14. Ah, Wikipedians. Well, we give our time. The project has tens of millions of bucks they are sitting on. They should pay. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Kim should just give us a free photo. Why is he so unreasonable???--Jack Upland (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Get me his personal email and I will write to him. Maybe he's on facebook....or more likely Myspace. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion

It is agreed that not having obtained a free image for a long time and/or not expecting to obtain a free image for a long time, is not a reason to allow a non-free image of a living person. An exception is if the person is deliberately avoiding, or has no access to, the public. Is this right?

I posted the conclusion in case others in the future ask what I did and want a quick answer without a lot of reading. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but I think the same conclusion was reached at the RfC in November 2015. See my point that the no-fair-use camp would NEVER accept non-free photo. What's new here is Masem's comment that this might change if there were some evidence of a policy to keep Kim away from touring snappers. I don't think I've heard that one before, and I don't think I believe it. The no-fair-use camp always has the Russia option: if Kim goes to Russia, the Russian government will probably release a free picture. Personally, I think some if this angst could be avoided if this camp simply said, "We will NEVER accept a fair-use photo". Be straight with other people, and don't give them false hope.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The issue with Russia was that when there was word that Jong-un might have been going, that gave us a likely chance for a free image, so while that trip had been in discussion, the possibility of free image taking existed. The trip never materialized, and as far as I can recall/knew, Jong-un has never left NK since taking leadership, nor seems to have any intent to leave NK. Since we cannot anticipate human behavior, we no longer should be assuming that we could get a free image of Jong-un when he leaves the country. We're still at this point though of not yet completely dismissing the possibility of a free image from a member of the public traveling to NK and getting a picture of him, since we have yet to verify that foreigners are that controlled and prevented from taking similar shots. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, you can see this from one of the leading tour companies, Koryo Tours. Movement and photography is greatly restricted. But I don't think we are going to find an official ruling saying that tourists are to be prevented from photographing Kim.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Let me offer another suggestion then: If there exists some documentation in an existing story (or that might come about) from a reliable Western press member who can describe how many hoops and difficulties it was to even get a photo of Jong-un, to a point that we can extrapolate and agree via consensus that this would mean it is near-impossible for a regular non-press Western citizen to get a photo, that I think would be sufficient proof that the chance of getting a free picture by the "happened to see Jong-un in public" is so slim that waiting on that chance can be deemed harmful to the encyclopedia, and we could allow a non-free image (noting this being a huge exception to the rule for the purposes of education, so that we're not weakening the Foundation's resolution).
One thing that we need to keep in mind is that if we do along a non-free, we still can't use a press photo per NFCC#2, and still need an alternate source.
And I will offer one more additional possible route: if there does exist a press photo of Jong-un where the photo itself is iconic and readily discussed in sources (and this is ignoring the various photos that end up as memes), that could be yet another way to include a photo of Jong-un as to serve double duty to identify Jong-un. Of the top of my head, I can't think of any. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, there's this article, mentioned previously, which states that the regime has a monopoly over his image.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

On Masem's point, one article that comes to mind is this one, where the article actually talks about the image itself. It's also a high-res portrait with no retouching, and is by far the best KJU photo that exists, so this would be the ideal route if it's acceptable under NFCC.

There was a comment earlier about a BBC article using a photo that was credited directly to the photographer, Ed Jones, although he works for AFP. I messaged him on Twitter and will update if I get a response (edit) I actually got a response in ten minutes, and was given an AFP email. This will likely not result in a free license, although I could give it a shot or message the email address to another user here. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have edited the page four times, the reson is because im on a mobile device and because I don't want to risk vandalism, I edited it in four parts. Cheers! Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations. I often seem to risk vandalism editing in just one part. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2017

There does not appear to be a picture of Kim Jong-Un in his personal details section. I feel adding a picture would help complete this wikipedia page. Charles Stiles (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please read the rest of this Talk page, 90% of which addresses the issue of photographs of Kim Jong-un. General Ization Talk 20:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the way consensus currently lies, we can't even have an "artist's impression". But if you are visiting, Charles, be sure to pack your pocket Kodak? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, Martinevans123, would you mind giving your opinion in the discussion above? So far many editors watching this page have given no feedback as to whether they support using a sketch or not.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jack. A well-executed sketch (perhaps one that looked almost exactly like a real photograph!) would be ok with me. I'd want to avoid that sort of artist sketch you commonly see illustrating court proceedings (assuming, of course, that we won't be seeing Kim in a courtroom any time soon). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC) p.s. where did you want me to add my comment?
I would like to see more editors commenting under "Consensus?" or "Restore photorealistic sketch". That way we would know what the consensus was. But commenting here is OK.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Sun Mu painting

While on one hand I hate making yet another photo-related section here, I noticed a painting on a friend's social media post from North Korean defector artist Sun Mu of Kim Jong-un, which turned out to actually be from 2011. Before addressing the question of Sun Mu's copyright policy, I want to see whether this meets the criterion of not being derived from a copyright image. I don't believe there are any actual images of Jong-un with this kind of side-eye, and it's good enough to be an accurate illustration without blatantly copying a particular press photo. If someone could clarify this, we can then see if Sun Mu would be will license this image (perhaps without the red tint) under CC so we can use it in the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It is fairly similar to this photo, though I'm not sure that matters. I'd be concerned that the sidelong look is not NPOV.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm reminded of this image, but the artistic image is not derivative. From an artistic standpoint; if I had no context I might not immediately conclude this is Kim Jong-un being depicted. Similar, but there are marked differences. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
In that case, it might be a catch-22: If it's too similar, it would be a derivative work, while if it is too different, it's not realistic enough. Perhaps he could paint an image that could straddle the line between these two, although I'm not sure it would be worth commissioning. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No, I think an artist could paint a very accurate depiction of him without it being a derivative of a photograph. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I (finally) reached out to him via the contact form on his website and will update if I get a reply. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent news in relation to the photo

The US is imposing an indefinite travel ban for all Americans visiting NK, requiring special permission to do so; currently this is in light of the Otto Warmbier issue, but one can read between the lines and see possible other reasons, ones that the EU may follow suit on. If it does become the case that a similar ban is enacted in the EU, I would definitely consider it now reasonably impossible that we could likely get a free image of Jong-un, as to allow a non-free. Yes, there are other countries besides the US and EU that can visit and get photos, but for all practical purposes, these are the two most likely sources that a free image would have come from.

However, this is only a suggestion, and if the EU or other states do nothing, then the current stance should still stand. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Certainly it complicates things, but I would still disagree with allowing a non-free image of him. Both his predecessors traveled to countries that were not likely to agree to such things were they around today, and both were photographed there, and we have those images. I consider the same possible for Jong-un. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It may also be worth noting that popular NK vloggers like Jaka Parker and Aram Pan are from Indonesia and Singapore, respectively, so they would not be affected by either US or EU travel prohibitions. Both of these countries have much better relations with NK than the US or the EU. While I appreciate you bringing it up, as I would really like to get this resolved, it just doesn't hold water when you look at who actually travels there, particularly who could give us a free photo as opposed to AP or another news org that would copyright all their photos. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I think if we are going analyze this situation properly and move past this deadlock, we really need to end this "People of country X can still go there, so clearly there's always a chance that 'someone' (its always vague as to who this someone is) could snap a photo (and then after risking their lives to get it, give the license away)." We're only talking about this at all because of Masem's reconsideration of his position in light of the fallout of what happened to Otto Warmbier who was one of those legal foreign travellers you allude to and was (from all apparent indications) tortured into a coma that ultimately proved fatal for stealing a propaganda poster. What do you think happens to the guy who tries to take a photo of the Supreme Commander? And please don't tell me I'm being histrionic or speculative about what happened to Warmbier; this state of affairs has long preceded his especially public death. Neither the general citizenry of North Korea nor any foreign party capable of giving us a free license image is ever going to have an opportunity to take a photo of Kim in North Korea, period. The man is surrounded by the most insular state propaganda and security apparatus in the history of the world. It's never going to happen. It takes a lot less than even considering taking such a photo for a person to end up in detention in the DPRK. Snow let's rap 00:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there's any indication that Warmbier was tortured into a coma, but, yes, it would be very risky to take an uauthorised photo of KJU.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Whatever happened to him, the North Korean explanation is apparently bunk and torture can come in forms other than blunt force trauma. But it's not worth speculating on anyway; at the very least, the man was sentenced to 15 years of hard labour in a prison camp for taking a propaganda poster off a wall (didn't even take it), and within a month was in a coma. And the case is hardly unique. Snow let's rap 20:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Masem, I for one appreciate your willingness to reconsider your position in light of new circumstances--even if it turns out that European states do not follow suit and you thus do not change your ultimate conclusion on the feasibility issue. This has been a long debate over all of these years, and I think there have been times we have all felt like we are slamming our heads against the wall, but the discussion has also stood out to me (against other content disputes of anywhere near this length that I have observed on the project) for mostly staying very respectful and civil, not withstanding the strong positions on both sides. It's very helpful to continuing to discuss in that vein when a party qualifies their own argument without being prompted, reminding both sides not to be too dogmatic. Let's see what happens from here (with regard to what happens with the travel restrictions) and then we can reconsider thereafter what the consensus on this issue now looks like. Snow let's rap 00:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think this changes the issue fundamentally, but it does underline the difficulty in getting a photo. I'm not clear on how the travel ban will affect journalists.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
If it operates in a similar fashion to past travel bans that the U.S. has imposed on its own citizens, then there will probably be a process by which journalists can ask for an exemption--but in practice, very few will try and there's no guarantee that even a single one will be allowed for some time. Not that it changes the equation much; as best I have been able to determine from working on this issue over the years (and trying to find someone with a photo that we could request a free license on) almost all foreign news agencies get their photos of Kim from the propaganda reports of the DPRK itself (which is why the non-portraiture ones always have a staged quality to them). Foreign journalists and photographers are just not allowed access to the man. And even if the AP or some other news organization did get a photo, it would not be licensed under creative commons--that much is certain. So I'm inclined to agree with you that not much is changed here, except that the added burden of the travel ban has proven enough to possibly change some perspectives of some of our long-term editors on this page. But we'll just have to wait and see how it pans out, as news of the travel ban develops. Snow let's rap 20:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Photo idea: link to external photo

Here's an idea for slightly improving the photo situation: why don't we just link to an external image instead of embedding an image? This is not unprecedented; it is done quite frequently using the {{External media}} template. Here's the description from that template's documentation for when it should be used:

If an image, 3D model, audio or video clip:

  1. is currently available online,
  2. cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia, even under fair-use rules, and
  3. readers will expect this type of media in the article,

then it may be appropriate to use {{external media}} to provide a direct link to the media file along with a description of the media.

This situation seems to perfectly meet all of those criteria. I admit I don't think I've ever seen this used for an article's primary infobox photo, but this is a very unique situation and I think an exception to the norm is warranted. My vote would be to this Washington Post article which includes a very hi-res supposedly-untouched portrait photo of Kim Jong-un released by KCNA (and an explanation about it). I would have preferred to link to the original AP story that the photo came from, but unfortunately, the version of that story on apnews.com is bizarrely missing the photo. There's a couple syndicated copies of the story floating around the web with the image, but most of them are much lower quality than the Washington Post version.

Please share your feedback:

  1. Do you support putting an external image link in the infobox of the article?
  2. What link should we use for the image? My Washington Post article, or something else?

Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  • We discussed this about 9 months ago at Talk:Kim_Jong-un/Archive_7#Why_don.27t_we_use_an_actual_picture_of_him.3F. In short, no. Long before we start discussing WHICH image to use, we have to determine if it is even legal to do so. Court rulings on the issue are equivocal, at best, and at least one company had an injunction issued against them indicating they violated fair use by deep linking. I do not recommend this as a solution. At a minimum, we would need to contact WMF legal counsel to better understand if it would be considered fair use. But, even if we did get approval, we couldn't do it; NFCC would still apply, as that governs our use of non-free content. We would be using such a link under terms of fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, a fairer summary of that short discussion would be "In short, no consensus." Also, we are not empowered to consider the legal issues here, only matters regarding our internal policies (which yes, have been informed by legal and licensing considerations but on a much larger platform than the idiosyncratic discussions on a talk page), so speculating on that front is useless. I don't object to reaching out to the WMF on the matter, however. Barring objection from the WMF (which I tend to doubt will occur) I for one would support this as being consistent with our (very plainly written) fair use policies regarding very exceptional circumstances; if we have another article that more conforms to the exact circumstances that exception was meant to apply to, I haven't seen it. But I support hosting a single low-res photo on our own servers on that rational, so it should come as no surprise that I support this middle ground variation. Snow let's rap 23:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The problem is it is not a middle ground. Whether we're hosting non-free content natively or remotely, we're still hosting it. If so, it has to adhere to WP:NFCC, which it won't, as established by two prior RfCs here. So, it's a moot point whether it's legal or not. We wouldn't accept it anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
It may not be close enough to the middle for you to endorse, but it does at least remove the aspect of hosting a non-free image ourselves, which is a significant difference with regard to the licensing, and does thus have an impact on the issues at hand. I agree that WP:NFCC must still be satisfied, but I (and many other editors) have long been satisfied that it is. (which is why I would be just as fine with hosting and using the image in our conventional fashion). And the previous RfCs you mention did not "establish" your position; they were "no consensus" and thus we defaulted to the status quo of not including the image. There are a number of us who have never stopped thinking that the lack of an image here is highly problematic, but have nevertheless dropped the issue for years at a time so that it doesn't constantly outsize all other discussion on the talk page and grind other work to a halt. But that doesn't mean a working consensus was established--not nearly. Snow let's rap 20:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Whether your call it consensus or not, if there are "many others" who want a non-free image, there are 2-3 times as "many others" who don't. That's the prevailing opinion. Start another RfC if you want to change that. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
LOL, 2-3x? Where are you pulling that number from? Each of the RfCs over the last few years has been close to even numbers of support/oppose !votes; early on, the supports were actually in the majority. There just as never been enough to settle concretly on one approach or another, so the status quo (born out of a respectful approach to NFCC) has prevailed. Snow let's rap 00:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
If you want to change the standing consensus (and that last RfC was closed with "a clear consensus exists here" against using a non-free image), then by all means please start a new RfC. Until that time, the reigning consensus stands. As I've said many times before, consensus can change. So, have at it. Let's see if consensus has changed. I doubt it has, as nothing's changed in the last year and a half to change the circumstance. But, I encourage you to try if you feel motivated to do so. --Hammersoft (talk)
That RfC ended with four editors !supporting the use of an image and six !opposing. Again, that's 4:6 (not "2-3x", as you tried to claim just previously). And that "clear consensus" comment was made by a closer who had all of a few months experience on the project. The RfC previous to that had an opposite ratio in favour of inclusion and had more participants. So if that's your idea of "clear consensus", then I see where the disconnect between you and I on this matter is. But that's nothing remotely like consensus. It's a shame that this issue has dragged on for years, but that's something I can live with, letting the issue go because the !votes have been too close. But any editor who has been participating in the discussion know that there has never been anything that genuinely looks anything like consensus on this page about that issue, and I think its incredibly disingenuous for you to say there has. That or an indication of massive confirmation bias.
I don't mean to be invicil about this, but any editor can go back and check those RfCs for themselves and see how contentious and very much the opposite of consensus-bearing this matter has been. Cherry-picking one sentence from a novice editor who got ahead of themselves (4:6 is never "clear consensus"), from an RfC that was not even the nearly the largest discussion we've had on in this matter (the previous one attracted much more community involvement), does not change the larger history here, which the longterm editors here are all too familiar with. There is no "standing consensus" and your insistence that there is on the basis of that RfC makes it feel like you're trying (consciously or otherwise) to put one of the two perspectives on the backfoot, when it has always had more or less equal support here, with just slight variations over the years. Snow let's rap 03:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
First, have another look at that last RfC. The view that achieved the highest support had 7 supports to your view's 4, That's pretty close to 2:1. Or, 75% higher than yours if you prefer. If you look at the first RfC, the strongest view in favor of keeping had 4 supports. The strongest against has 12. that's 3:1. I stand by my statements. I don't think you're being uncivil. You do feel strongly about this, and there's nothing wrong with that. I reiterate what I've said twice now; start a new RfC. Nothing has changed in the 19 months since the last one. But, you are very welcome to try. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I just don't think it would be a productive time to have another RfC right now. I think it would just end in another deadlock (and potentially raise the heat). But Masem's signal that the circumstances may have changed his views on this matter (or could down the line) suggest to me that a change could be in the winds eventually. I've always suspected that eventually some !oppose votes would eventually change their minds with the passage of time., and Masem having been won over (if he eventually is) is significant, because he was one of the more resolute advocates for not using the image in the past; if he is convinced by the way things have played out, then surely others will be too. But I don't think it does us any good to have that conversation yet. I would not have launched the last RfC when it was opened either, for the same reason (though once another editor did, I spoke my position at length). But an RfC tomorrow would only get people on both sides more entrenched, and leave us where we've been on this issue for the last couple of years (that is to say, deeply divided). Not only will I not be opening an RfC for a while yet, I encourage everyone else to wait until we have a significant enough change that it is a worthwhile discussion. Snow let's rap 03:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Decide on a sketch and impose an indefinite moratorium until a free image appears. MB298 (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Artwork

So, so simple. The community has wasted how many hours on reads and keystrokes over this image matter? It has to be in the hundreds now.

If only this could be put to rest with a one-hour drawing by a decent artist. WMF's tight purse strings is in the way. I wish Wikipedia:Donated artwork could be revived where donations to the general coffers of WMF could instead be given directly to commission a tendered image of Kim Jong-un. Artists at DeviantArt are poor and good. We're talking about a hundred bucks here. Thoughts? It could kill two birds with on stone: get an image and solve this problem for other articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see here! That has to be easier than another 100 hrs. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the only solution is a photo. Even if we have a good artwork, people will ask why there isn't a photo. Short of that, we should all avoid rehashing old arguments, and refer anyone who comments to the FAQ.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
In addition, I "think" readers have come to expect a photograph. In this context, it may be "awkward" to have a sketch, whereas other articles use photographs.  Honette 07:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It's possible to obtain a free picture, but, in case, it's fruitless

Here it is, taken by some Russian tourist, however, it's too small. Should I try to contact this guy to get a permission? He's not a regular guest on the forum, by the way. Al-Douri (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

  • It's certainly worth it to contact them to see if they have a higher resolution photograph. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Done, but the request needs to be applied by the moderator, what I can hardly imagine because of... you know, that spam cautiousness. I can't even send him a message, that goddamn forums. In addition, I can send a message to his company because of photos posted on its official site, but I think it would be inappropriate. Al-Douri (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Free photograph

I think i found a free photograph here Searingjet (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting find, but if you look at the album and scroll down, you'll see that he's photoshopped in, like in this one. The original image with KJU in it would still be copyright unless it was taken by a photographer who didn't copyright it (the link in the section above this one from the Russian might be an example). However, it appears that the ones here would be copyright KCNA. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Here's another version [8], and possibly the original from which it was extracted. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Honorary alma mater

Should we really include universities that give "honorary" degrees as part of Alma mater in the biography infobox? By that logic we should put Harvard University in Steven Spielberg's infobox. If he never attended HELP University, I would suggest removing it from the infobox. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and took it out. Thanks for the suggestion. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

I never understood why his role as "Supreme Leader" is downplayed in the infobox to being a note under being "supreme commander of the army". I assume supreme leader is a more noteworthy and relevant title than commander of the army (which the corresponding role in America doesn't even show up in the POTUSes' infoboxes). Shouldn't that be changed? NoMoreHeroes (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox - "Children"

I have removed the listing of his alleged children from the Infobox due to the speculative nature of that information. If the information was of a factual nature, then it might have encyclopedic value. This information is speculative, and it has no place in an encyclopedia other than, perhaps, to state some source has speculated about it.
In place of a listing of his alleged children in the infobox, I have, instead, made a entry to reference the main article where details regarding his alleged children is given ("Speculative. See text for info."). Such entry is consistent with the article on Kim Jung-un's wife, Ri Sol-ju, where two other editors have already stated information about his children is speculative ("Speculative. See text for info."). Please do not change the current entry without first seeking consensus. Mercy11 (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Other than being his wife, almost everything about her and her children is speculative, including her name. There is a general consensus about some things (like her name) but official sources say almost nothing, so differentiating between what is "known" and "reported" can be helpful. -- GreenC 02:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Kim Jong-un's brother

In the third paragraph of the article, it is stated that Kim may have been responsible for the assassination his brother Kim Jong-nam.

Through the rest of the article, Kim's brother is referred to as Kim Jong-chui. Since he only had one brother, which is correct? And if, for some reason, both are correct, then it needs to be explained.

--Tickledpuppy (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not true that he only had one brother. Kim Jong Nam was his half-brother. There is a family tree at the bottom of the article, and this is also explained in the lead of the Kim Jong-chul article. I will try to clarify this in this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

image

First of all I know I have left a message about this before, and that there was a huge discussion and consensus months ago ^^, but can someone explain briefly why we don't have a real portrait of him? I just do not understand, especially how he's a popular figure lately and ofc to NK. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see the Frequently Asked Questions at the top of the page.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Rocket Man

The article should mention Trump's nickname for Un. It's newsworthy (and funny). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.215.175 (talk • contribs)

Too soon, per WP:RECENTISM. One political jab isn't necessary going to stick. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Kim has been called many things. As has Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I also agree it shouldn't be included. Every political insult uttered is not relevant to an article about a national leader. AusLondonder (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedians living in North Korea

Doesn't Wikipedia have a WikiProject for North Korea ? We could ask its members if they reside in North Korea and request them to get a photo of Mr Kim by going to one of his rallies or launches or what you call it. How's my idea ? Also, on a completely different note, shouldn't this article be written in British English since English in Korea follows British grammar and spellings and according to WP:ENGVAR Mr Kim is of national importance to North Korea. 86.97.128.199 (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  • In North Korea, Internet access is restricted to a very small set of elite individuals. Thus, it would be extremely unlikely for us to have a community here of people who reside in North Korea. We might have a few North Korean ex-pats, but no in-residence community. As to variety of English, not sure that it matters. I think we can continue as we have been. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
English taught in NK follows British English syntax and grammar, such as colour instead of color. It isn't necessarily British English, but close enough. 86.97.128.199 (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that NK follows British English. That's easily proved.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
86.97.128.199 and Jack Upland: Would either of you be willing to provide any sources to support your claims? We work on sources here, not feelings. AusLondonder (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
For example, this article reports "British English is taught as standard". Also, you can search KCNA for "labour", "theatre", "colour" etc - but I'm sure someone's going to say that's ORIGINAL RESEARCH!!! However, I don't think this matters that much. British English is considered standard in most countries outside of the USA. I'm more concerned that we are not using North Korean romanisation for names. See discussion here.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The article is subscription only so I cannot access it and I cannot access the KCNA, either. You are wrong about British English being "considered standard in most countries outside of the USA" - this article from July this year shows that American English is more used than British English in Mexico, The Philippines, Brazil, Portugal, South Korea, Japan, Russia, Spain, Thailand, China, Indonesia, Turkey, Italy, Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and Belgium. British English is preferred in absolutely zero non-English-speaking countries. AusLondonder (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
By the way, 86.97.128.199 initially claimed "English in Korea follows British grammar and spellings" - here are two sources (1, 2) proving that to be completely false. AusLondonder (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Simply because you cannot access sources, does not entitle you to imply that other editors are wrong or even lying. I gave you a quotation. I think you can access one article from KCNA here, so search for "theatre" and "labour", if you don't believe me. Or perhaps you can access this. Your sources refer to South Korea using American English, which is irrelevant here. You cite a list of 20 countries that prefer American English, but there are about 150 countries in the world, so I don't see where you come up with the figure "absolutely zero". The Guardian article you're referring to actually says: "In Madrid, Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin and other western European cities, American English has significant influence on vocabulary even though British English has historically been the norm." It does not say that American English is the standard.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The Guardian article you cite is from NK News - it is exactly the same as the one other article you cited before. Have you conducted your own searches at KCNA? If you had you'd see results are produced for both "theater" and "labor", as well! I get my figure regarding international usage of English from the Guardian article I cited, which showed, of the many countries surveyed, zero non-English speaking countries prefer British English. AusLondonder (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
NK News is a specialist site for news about North Korea. What's your point? I concede that the spelling in KCNA is inconsistent, so this isn't as decisive as I thought. The Guardian article you cite doesn't say what you claim it does, and it's really irrelevant, as it doesn't mention North Korea. Do you have a source which says North Korea uses American English?--Jack Upland (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@AusLondoner: This is the same ip. By English in Korea, I meant English in NK. Obviously SK follows American English as it was under US while NK was under Soviet Union. And no. zero countries prefer American English is false. There are more British English speakers than American English. Most South African and South Asian countries prefer British English. 2.51.18.94 (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC) @AusLondonder: Broken ping.

How about you read the source I presented which proves your personal bias wrong. AusLondonder (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: Your source talks nothing about North Korea, all it says is South Korea uses American English. Usage of American English may be rising, but we are looking at the variety of English used by the government of the country. Eg- India - Indian English (100% British English spelling) (But the study shows nearly half of the people uses American English. Nice one) The study also admits that Twitter is used by younger generation and books are written by an elite class. All this is offtopic, here, we are trying to determine the variety of English in North Korea (not South Korea), for which Jack Upland has given one source that British English spelling is used. You haven't given any till now. 2.51.18.94 (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

IPA

The article currently says "[kim.dzʌŋ.ɯn]", but I can't find a "z" at all in Help:IPA/Korean. Maybe "dʑ" was intended instead? --BjKa (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be [dʑ͡], not [dz] or [dʑ] (or [tɕ͡] if the surname is omitted).
Where does the alternative pronunciation [ts] come from? It looks wrong to me.
Isn't [ʌ] Seoul dialect? I thought was [ɔ] in Pyongyang dialect, which probably is what we should use in this article. The article North–South differences in the Korean language seems to consistently use [ʌ] for the South Korean pronunciation of all words and [ɔ] for the North Korean pronunciation. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Submissions for the top image

Is it possible for an editor to simply create a sketch and submit it for use? Edaham (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Edaham, so long as the sketch isn't based on an existing photograph. For some time we actively looked for people interested in drawing such a sketch but no one showed up. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
ok, so it couldn't simply be a photo realistic charcoal sketch of a photo of him then. But could it be sourced from several photos to create an average if it were not identifiable as having been sourced from one particular image? Also I'm interested about the policy/copyright law/thing which limits the use of a photo to create a secondary hand drawn image. Would ownership in this case still be an issue, if the artist responsible for making the image were to declare it as being in the public domain? Where can I read the exact letter of the law to which Wikipedia is bound to adhere? Edaham (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
further more is there a call for these kind of images elsewhere on Wikipedia? Is there a list of wanted images? Edaham (talk)
Edaham, it's difficult to say how this issue plays out when using multiple images if you don't give a detailed explanation of the process you had in mind. The policy is here c:Commons:Derivative works and it contains all the relevant legal considerations. To simplify, if you make a drawing based on some other image, you and the original copyright holder own the copyright to the new image; you cannot place it into the public domain without the consent of the original copyright holder.
To someone who wants to make such an image, I could give this as a practical advice: watch videos of Kim, then try to draw him from your memory. That way you are probably relying on the general impression given by these videos, not their copyrightable elements that contain originality.
We did start a project at Wikipedia:Donated artwork and listed wanted images here: Wikipedia:Donated artwork/List of articles needing images. If you want more information, please don't hesitate to ask. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
many thanks! Let me read up on what you've linked there and get back to you. Edaham (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflicted. Much of what I had to say Finnusertop said more eloquently than I could. Adding one example...) We've deleted several images of Kim Jong-un because they are derivative works. Someone tried to use a copy of this image because it is licensed as cc-by 2.0, making it supposedly compatible with our requirements. The artwork is directly derivative of an original photograph that is copyrighted. An example deletion discussion of a derivative Kim Jong-un work can be seen here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
that is useful info. In particular the info on the method used to ascertain that it is indeed derivitave is helpful. I think making a drawing from memory in a new angle and pose satisfies the originality requirements. Edaham (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a thought on the creative process on this; a derivative work might have the thought "This is what the photographer saw", whereas an original work might have the thought "this is how I see him when I think of him". --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes. Reusers are legally required to attribute the image "by Lane Rasberry". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Are all local Wikipedias bound by USA copyright law? US copyright is dominated by America's take on Fair Use and is incredibly unpleasant for other countries to deal with. It would be nice to be free from the oppressive limits of US copyright, especially when contributing to Wikipedia. Santamoly (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the servers that content is served from are located in the US, so any copyright issues would be first based on US copyright law (which does include URAA recognition of most other country's copyright law). It should be noted that North Korea is not one of those countries (nor are places like Iraq, etc.) but Jimmy Wales has asked us to proceed as if those local copyright laws were held in reciprocal recognition. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
There are also servers in the Netherlands: [9] so European law becomes involved at some stage? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think yet there's been any case law to determine how mirrored/cached content on foreign servers would be treated. IANAL, but I do know that WMF still has us follow copyright laws of the US since they themselves are a US organization with principle servers in the US. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2017

(Kim Jong Un is 130Kg) 45.122.240.81 (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kim Jong-un. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey about top image

File:Kim Jong Un Speaking.jpg
A
B
C
D
These are four candidates for the top image. A fifth option is nothing (E).

NOTE: Image A is currently up for deletion at Wikimedia Commons. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

And now it has been deleted, and A becomes E.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

!Votes about top image

  • I support Image A because it's photographic, and even though the quality is poor it's still realistic compared to sketches. My second choice is a tie between C, D, and E. I emphatically oppose image B because it's not realistic, and instead is overly-flattering. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Image A, but if it is hammered soft as a copyright violation, I support Option E: nothing. We have had so many debates about this. A sketch looks ridiculous and detracts from the rest of the article. I suggest we have nothing until we have a photo.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    If? Suspending my !vote until copyright status of Image A is fully clarified. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    User:Martinevans123, it's been at Wikimedia Commons for over a year. I merely cropped it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks, ATYW. So a copyright expert (someone like User:Diannaa, for example) has made a conscious decision on its status, rather than it just being overlooked or forgotten? The upload date at Commons appears to be today? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    The commons page says it was extracted from another commons image. If you can get an expert to double-check both commons pages, that would be great. Here's the image that's been at commons for over a year. Anythingyouwant (talk)
    Ah yes, you just uploaded the cropped version today. Sourcing from Flickr is sometimes problematic, isn't it. Dianna is very good at spotting alerts and replying, so am expecting her advice before too long. I must say that the uncropped version is a much more informative image. But even the low quality of the cropped version may be preferable to a sketch. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    FYI, here's the commons file history, showing that experienced editors have reviewed this. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    Plenty of Commons editors have seen it then. I guess that is reassuring. It's the first step from flickr that I'm probably most wary of. If the image originates in North Korea, surely we have to respect their copyright laws? Anything else would be a touch undiplomatic, wouldn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    I hate to rain on the parade, it being the Day of the Sun, Easter, Passover etc, but we discussed this very photo a year ago: [10]. The short answer is that while the DPRK has "freedom of panorama", this only means that the original photo, with the giant TV screen in the background, is OK. Cropping the photo to home in on the image we want is not OK. If it was, copyright law would be meaningless. All you would have to do is take something outside and photograph it, and your image would be out of copyright. So, no, this is not a free image.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    Assuming for argument's sake that the image is not okay at Wikimedia Commons, it would seem still to qualify as fair use to have it hosted at Wikipedia instead of at Commons. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    We have discussed this before. An RfC in November 2015 rejected the use of a fair use image.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll also go for Option E (no photo in infobox) as this has come up repeatedly the past couple years and I believe we should see if this is mitigated by not having anything there at all. I believe most users wouldn't think much about just having text, whereas a ridiculous looking image will make them much more likely to head to this talk page to complain. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree. I have no idea why a normal photo can't be used from any of hundreds of news sources (more Wikipedia silly/edit-wars, I suppose). "Nothing" seems better than "very strange". 5.102.198.144 (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Image A: This falls in line with nearly all biographical WP articles. I don't see why we shouldn't use a photograph if it's available (my condolences to Option E), and all the other image options come across as jarring or even ludicrous for a well-known person who is seen on TV quite frequently. Wolfdog (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    Does that mean, Wolfdog, that you'd support Option E if no photo is available?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    Ha... No, I guess I'd go with Option B. At least it's something. Wolfdog (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Image C as the best of limited options. Meaning no offense to the contributor that went through the effort to produce image B for our use here, but it's just not up to the quality standards of a lead image; it more or less accurately replicates Kim's features, but lacks depth (in the technical sense, not aesthetic) and contrast and has a not-quite-realistic colour palette to it. It's massively better than anything I could produce, but I still think image C, despite being a more minimalist work, better captures Kim's look, without standing out on the article (for all the wrong reasons). Snow let's rap 20:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Image C is the best available. Image B suffers from a bit of uncanny valley effect. I don't see any support for D, I'd say it's too faint/sparse of a sketch. Image C feels much more solid. Alsee (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks Snow Rise, for catching my typo.[11] Alsee (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
No problem--happy to be of assistance; I'm glad I was reading the situation correctly. :) Snow let's rap 08:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Image B is far better than C, in my opinion. Regarding opinions above, a bit of Uncanny Valley just shows how close to real it appears. As for 'unrealistic colour palette', at least it has colour! C on the other hand looks like a rough sketch you'd find on Deviant Art, and could pass for a lot of other people, and is monotone. Honestly find it bizarre the support is for C currently when B is a far stronger likeness in the absence of an actual public domain photo. 80.192.27.175 (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • My take on this is that we want it to either be a photo or an obvious sketch, as we don't want to confuse readers. This comment has been made here previously. I would recommend sticking with C until we get a real photo. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: as explained under "Consensus?", I have now inserted Option C.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Late Response, but Image C I just came across this article under my watchlist. I believe Image C is far superior to the other ones. While B is certainly a good attempt at making a photorealistic 3d manipulation of his face, it is indeed low quality and is "blurry". The sketch is not perfect either, and I believe this article is certainly unique in its placement of a sketch as the lead image. But I believe it's the best option. Photography is excessively limited in North Korea, so I really think it's the best we're gonna get. Unless someone wants to try and email some media organizations with the following template, I'm not sure what success that would have. Tutelary (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Image B because it has the hallmarks of a painting (or a painted portrait if you will), and I would much rather prefer something close to a painting than a rough sketch for the infobox. Mar4d (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Image C for reasons given above by Alsee and Tutelary. Applodion (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Please note that Option B as currently depicted is not the Option B voted on. It is far more realistic.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about top image

Since we're on the topic, and this discussion subheading hasn't been used until now, does anyone have the direct KCNA link to the image found in this article? The KCNA link the article has doesn't point to the correct page. I posted about it when it came out last May, and assumed it was copyright KCNA although it doesn't have the standard KCNA lettering on the bottom right of the image that the others do on the kcna.kp site. If it is either not copyright or we could request permissions, it would be a perfect photo as it is a high quality and unretouched portrait of KJU. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It's copyright by default. It's obviously not 50 years old, and we have no explicit statement from the owner waiving copyright. As you know, we attempted to get permission a year ago but got no response [12].--Jack Upland (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Just for info, which is the sticking point here? The less than 50 years old, or the no freedom of panorama for the original? If the former, why is it even still displayed on this Talk page? Paging User:Diannaa. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
A tale of two photos. One is Option A which is a cropping of an apparently free image. The cropping defeats freedom of panorama. It's no longer a panorama. Mr Stewart has just brought up a second photo, a unretouched picture of KJU of which he is apparently fond. There is no basis for saying this is copyright free.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see (I think). I see from the deletion discussion over at Commons that the freedom of panorama argument is moot Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Basically, for the purposes of a photo of KJU, it's not complicated. We need explicit permission from the copyright owner of the image, waiving copyright. That's it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the intricacies of copyright law. I had thought that "freedom of panorama" meant, essentially, there was no copyright owner. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Please read Commons:De minimis. I believe that the original photograph from which Option A is extracted fails the De minimis test, but the admin closing the deletion discussion for the original photo apparently did not agree (I don't think I argued the point very strongly). But there is no way that De minimis applies to the extracted TV frame of Kim Jong-un, and I am sure that any Commons admin who has a good understanding of copyright will close the current deletion discussion as delete. Everyone here is welcome to take part in the discussion on Commons! BabelStone (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I'll still reserve my !vote until it's deleted (or not). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Lmao you guys are being p-u-s-s-i-e-s. There are hundreds of high quality images of Kim Jong-Un released by the North Korean government and you're refusing to use them because "muh copyright." Like North Korea really cares about copyright. What, do you think Kim is going to nuke us if we use a photograph released by HIS government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:ED02:A200:49F7:B238:7EFE:8033 (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not about North Korea's laws, it's about our own principles here on Wikipedia. And further, images on wikipedia are meant to be free so that other people may use them for articles etc without violating copyright laws. The sketch we have up now has been used many times by other people needing a free image for their site. Lukepryke (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Question: is this image acceptable?

I found it online. Is it indeed a photograph of Kim Jong-Un, and if so does it meet the copyright requirements to be used on Wikimedia? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said above: "Basically, for the purposes of a photo of KJU, it's not complicated. We need explicit permission from the copyright owner of the image, waiving copyright. That's it." Do we have permission from the copyright owner? No, we don't.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, due to his age at the time, it might be immaterial. Even if we had copyright permission, he is much older now and this would not be a good representation of him, plus we would need to crop it and it would then be low quality. Of course, you could argue it's a bit better than we have now, but I don't think it would be appropriate for the lead image. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree. You could have it in the body, but using it as the lead image would create more problems than it solved.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Consensus?

This survey has been going on for a month. Option A is now out of the picture. I don't see a consensus so far for Option B which has been the image for a while. Should we try Option E (nothing), which at least has two clear votes?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Option B would be the best since it is used in other wikipedia articles such as Leaders of North Korea --Figfires (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but we could change those articles to reflect the decision here.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have looked through the archives, back to 2013, and there seem to have been strong opinions against sketches (including by longstanding editors who support the "no fair use" line). There was a survey in July 2015 which included Option B, but it was inconclusive. I can't see a consensus for a sketch, and certainly not this one. I suggest unless and until a consensus forms, we have nothing.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd at least like to go without it for a couple months to see how many comments we get about there being nothing versus how many we currently get with a sketch. I'd be partial towards whichever garners the least discontent until we can find an actual picture that's freely licensed. Tonystewart14 (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
This survey has been going on since April. Option C now has gained the lead, but there are many more people active at this page that haven't commented than have. MB298 has restored Option B, arguing we should use it until consensus has been achieved. However, Option B has little support. Meanwhile, we now have a whole page devoted to the image issue, often rehashing old arguments. This is not good. We need to move on.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
As Option C has taken the lead, and since this survey has dragged on for far too long, I have now inserted Option C in the place of B. While B has its fans, it has been consistently attacked for years. With people commenting about the "uncanny valley" etc. If people object, please make reasoned responses on the Talk page, rather than engaging in edit wars.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't Option E be the default unless a consensus is otherwise reached? Sleyece (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer to have Option E (nothing), but it has clearly less support than Option C. It would be unfair to treat one option as the default when it wasn't supported by the discussion. This discussion has been going on since April, and we can't wait for a consensus forever.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Restore the "Photorealistic" sketch

@Tonystewart14: I think it's quite obvious that not having any picture will result in endless edit wars of editors putting it back. We don't have to try that for months; it has happened a dozen times in just a matter of two weeks already.

I support putting the "photorealistic" sketch (File:Kim Jong-Un Photorealistic-Sketch.jpg) back in. While there probably wasn't an exhaustive discussion that determined we should use that image, everyone seemed to be fine with that particular image for years. And that's consensus too. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there was never any discussion that concluded in favour of the sketch. In fact, there have been many attacks on it. It hasn't been there for years, but has been interchanged with other sketches over time. You can argue there was consensus, but I don't think it matters now. Since the issue has been so contentious, it would be good to have an explicit consensus on the issue, so it would be helpful if other editors could give their opinion. The attempts to restore the sketch have been mainly the one editor, and none of those people has made a comment here, despite being prompted to.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I was surprised to see no image of the leader. I believe the sketches need to look like sketches so readers can discriminate between hand-drawn/computer generated artwork and a photograph. I would discard Option B. I would pick Option C because it has stronger contrast (easier to see the artwork) than Option D.  Honette 09:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2018

I would like to edit this. Blake0288 (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. General Ization Talk 03:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kim Jong-un. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Note that I deleted this link altogether since the original is down and the archive version doesn't have any meaningful information on it. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sketch vs. Portrait

Wouldn't the image depicting Kim Jong-un be more accurately referred to as a portrait rather than a sketch, which is defined on Wikipedia as "a rapidly executed freehand drawing that is not usually intended as a finished work" - 99.228.25.125 (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are no public domain (or cc-by) portrait images of Kim Jong-un, so a free alternative (a sketch) has to be used. Codyorb (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
If you mean a painting by "portrait", that may be possible. Again, there aren't any free versions of those images. — Codyorb (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Passport

Should the passport really have its own subsection?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Missing comma

The page is protected so I can't fix this; can someone please add the missing comma in "Kim Jong-un is widely believed to have ordered the assassination of his half-brother, Kim Jong-nam in Malaysia in February 2017." It goes after "Kim Jong-nam," which is offset information. Thanks.27.247.167.139 (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done General Ization Talk 04:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! 27.247.167.139 (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Moratorium on image

After the RfC in 2015, there was a consensus on a moratorium on these endless discussions about the image: see Talk:Kim_Jong-un/Archive_5#Foreign_Languages_Publishing_House and Talk:Kim_Jong-un/Archive_5#Proposal_on_image. It was proposed to avoid debating the topic unless something new came up and if newcomers made a comment on the issue to refer them to the FAQ in the first instance, rather than reigniting this tired debate. I think this worked fairly well. Though the image issue did resurface, through 2016 and early 2017 we had productive discussions about other topics. However, since April 2017 this talk page has been absolutely dominated by the issue. We had a survey that ran all year, which achieved nothing. In the end the photorealistic sketch was restored (now in an enhanced version), even though there was no consensus in favour of it. This is a waste of time and effort, and crowds out other issues. I'm not suggesting a complete ban on the topic, but I think it would be good if those of us who are page watchers avoided getting into long discussions on the issue, unless something new comes up.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems this is now irrelevant because we have a photo!--Jack Upland (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Pleasure squads again

Under Personality, we say:

Kim Jong-un is reportedly recruiting young, female companions to form a "pleasure troupe" to entertain him.[1]

We discussed this back in 2015, and the consensus was to remove this (which then had its own section). I think the problems remain. It's a salacious rumour, with no substantiation, and the media openly admit that.

We also say:

According to diplomatic sources, "Kim Jong-un likes to drink and party all night like his father and ordered the [imported sauna] equipment to help him beat hangovers and fatigue."[2]

The source says: 'According to diplomatic sources, the North recently imported sauna equipment from Finland and Germany. "Kim Jong-un likes to drink and party all night like his father and ordered the equipment to help him beat hangovers and fatigue," a source said. "Imports of wine and other spirits have increased since Kim Jong-il was in power."' So really diplomatic sources say that the North imported sauna equipment. It's "a source" that says it's for Kim 's personal use. But how would this source possibly know his personal habits??? Then the increase in alcohol imports. Really, is Kim Jong Un drinking that much that it affects the balance of trade??? In the end, the use of a sauna is pretty trivial. What was Churchill's hangover cure? How did Reagan recover from cocaine? The only take-out message from this is that Kim's a heavy drinker. I think other sources have suggested this, so maybe we should simplify this.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Kim Jong-un brings back 'pleasure troupe' entertainers". The Daily Telegraph. 2 April 2015. Archived from the original on 3 April 2017. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ "Kim Jong-un Inherits Father's Taste for Bling". The Chosun Ilbo. 22 August 2012. Archived from the original on 30 March 2013. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Nuclear weapons

This section says, "In December 2015, in a release from the official Korean Central News Agency, Kim announced that his country had developed a hydrogen bomb. Kim's claim is considered unlikely." This might have been true back then, but the 2017 North Korean nuclear test gave a lot of weight to the claim.[13] The passage seems out-of-date and misleading. I will remove it.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I have also removed some other out-of-date information. I don't think we need a running commentary on the nuclear weapons program, and I think having a chorus of doubts about it is not neutral and very misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I have added updated information, noting some uncertainty and scepticism. There could be a hiatus in weapons testing, so this might be up-to-date for a while. I hope...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2018

Bignibba2.0 (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC) i wish to change his DOB
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — IVORK Discuss 04:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Photograph with Mike Pompeo

A photograph of Mike Pompeo was released today showing him shaking hands with Kim. If someone could get a fair use version, I think it warrants inclusion in the article. Sovietmessiah (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I've already uploaded it (File:Mike Pompeo with Kim Jong-un.jpg) as a work of the Executive Office of the President of the United States since the White House released it. Corky 22:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2018

86.131.67.102 (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Kim jong un has stoped missiles
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Abote2 (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Main picture Impartiality

I don't think the main picture in article (Kim Jong-un at the Workers' Party of Korea main building.png) is impartial. Because the background looks like an atomic explosion. --AlmaBeta (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Only in your imagination, AlmaBeta. This photo is cropped from a much larger photo including several people. The backdrop is an image of a seaside sunset scene, with several trees visible. It is not an atomic explosion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
AlmaBeta, as I noted above, I thought exactly the same as you. A good example of how context can influence perception, as in e.g. the Thematic apperception test. We all now know that things have changed, because "the sun shines out of Mr Trump's hair". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I saw it as depicting the sunrise of a new day of peace and prosperity. However, I think Kim's hair looks like devil's horns. Maybe it would be better not to have a photo.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Free license image has been found

After years of effort and nearly endless debate, a free license image of Kim Jong-un is now available. The image now on the article is a crop of File:Kim Jong-un meeting with South Korean envoys at the Workers' Party of Korea main building.jpg, which is confirmed to be available on the source page from which it came, and licensed under the Korea Open Government License, Category 1. I've removed the {{Image requested}} and FAQ from the header, marking the latter as historical as it is linked from two different archives of this talk page. This, at long last, ends the many debates that have happened on this talk page regarding the image, and does so in favor of free content. Many, many thanks to @Cyberdoomslayer: for finding this image and uploading it to Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I found another image from the same site (Blue House) and license that while not a great lede image, works fine to help fill the body based on this recent meeting with SK. (See File:Chung Eui-yong and Kim Jong-un.jpg) --Masem (t) 15:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I never thought I'd see the day! :)
Good work to everyone mentioned above. Now to improve the rest of the article... Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Finally...Hopefully there will be plenty of better free-use images coming out of the planned meeting in the Joint Security Area next month. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I think a better crop-job could be done though. Kim isn't centered in the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BagInACampfire (talk • contribs) 07:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic! It's not the greatest of photos for the purposes of a lead image, but after the long wait, it will certainly do in a pinch! I think I've said this in the past, but I'll repeat that I think the regulars here should be proud of the manner in which discussion on this issue stayed as civil as it did over such a long period of debate, despite strong editorial opinions on all sides. I'm glad the issue is finally resolved satisfactorily. Snow let's rap 04:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

More potential free?

Kim visited mainland China to meet with Xi Jinping. If I read Commons:Template:PD-PRC-exempt, works by the media in the PRC are in the public domain, so there might be a possibility for more free images, but I am not 100% sure. --Masem (t) 03:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Similar claims were made about NK media over the years,[14] but it is clear that PRC media do claim copyright — look at their websites.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • White House Twitter [15]. Other media like Reuters label these PD US Gov. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Looks promising. (Wish we could use that one of Barack and Michelle, too). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Signpost article

Those following this might be interested in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-26/News and notes, where the first article there is about the free license image being found. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

What we have learned

I think it might be worthwhile to summarise what we have learned, what the consensus is, coming out of this long discussion, perhaps on the North Korea project page. This issue might reoccur in relation to other North Koreans. For example:

  • It is more likely that we will get a photo from an international event than from a tourist in North Korea. There is no point in scouring the web for a copyright-free photo.
  • All photos published by NK state media are copyright.
  • The copyright period in NK is 50 years from the date of the photograph.
  • NK has Freedom of Panorama, but that doesn't mean you can crop the background from a photo and use the photo on its own.
  • Someone who lives in NK is not a recluse.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Should also add that some SK gov't works are free licenses, so now we're getting even more from the current SK/NK talks. (eg currently in the In the News section on the Main Page) --Masem (t) 13:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
      • It's hard to imagine a better main image than the current one (now that I can now stop seeing the background as a Hwasong-15 nuclear explosion). And the article as a whole is quite well populated. Going forward this issue may have been largely resolved? But yes, for other North Koreans it's useful to make notes of these lessons. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Yes, it's resolved for KJU and a lot of other North Koreans, but if there's some other North Korean person on thing that people want a picture of, I think it would be handy to have a quick reference guide, rather than rehash the arguments or search the archives.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
          • With all due respect, I still don't see why we couldn't have fair-used one image of him until a free-use image became available. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
            • I agree, but we had two RfCs. This is the position that Wikipedia has adopted so far, and let's not repeat old arguments.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Also: according to the consensus, when North Korea's copyright rules refer to "current news" this refers to information in government gazettes etc, not news media.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

"List of foreign trips made by Kim Jong-un" article

This article in the foreign trips section has a *see also* header that leads to a nonexistent article, List of foreign trips made by Kim Jong-un. It's an article that can be made, but we don't have one for Kim Jong-il or Kim Il-sung. Would it still be a good idea to go ahead and create? -- Jeremy Ahn (talk | contribs) 10:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

How would one treat the alleged rather extended trip to "a school in Switzerland near Bern?" Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
1. We do have an article North Korean leaders' trains which partially covers the same topic. 2.While Kim's foreign trips are notable, I think would be better to fill out the section here (currently only a sentence) before creating a new article. 3. In any case, we should never have a link to a non-existent article.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Knock yourselves out, if you are confident that WP:LISTN is met. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
In answer to Martin's question which I failed to answer, the article should mention his alleged attendance at a Swiss school as background, but it shouldn't class it as a "visit" because it was allegedly a longer stay.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
No objection, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting "dictator"

Last year a discussion said we should avoid using "dictator" to describe Jong-un unless RSes used the term (It can be a BLP violation if we're doing that in WP voice without the backup). Doing a quick google news check now shows a lot of sources more recently using this term. Given that, I have no specific opinion which way it should fall ("leader" or "dictator") but believe that discussion should be reviewed in light of new sources to determine if "dictator" can be used. --Masem (t) 17:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said before, experts have a wide range of views about how much power Kim has.[16][17] Many people simply use the word "dictator" to mean "undemocratic leader we don't like". This includes Nicolas Maduro[18], Vladimir Putin[19], Xi Jinping[20] Donald Trump[21][22] In looking at sources, we have to determine whether they are using "dictator" as a throwaway label or whether they are making an assessment of the form of government. We also should bear in mind that Wikipedia has a policy of neutrality, while news media does not.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
There's a range of opinions about almost any topic involving politics. But Kim is clearly more of a dictator than any of the other people you mentioned. He's the third generation of a hereditary dynasty, and has had potential rivals in his family murdered. If he's not a dictator I'm not sure anyone alive today fits the definition. Lots of reliable sources refer to him as a dictator, he fits the dictionary definition of a dictator, the fact that you can find a few experts who deny the obvious isn't a good reason not to call a spade a spade. Binarybits (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I think your comment underlines why we have to be careful about labels. A hereditary ruler is not a dictator. Dictators seize power or come to power in a crisis. "Dictator" is not just a pejorative label.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Have you done primary school English Jack? In the West, we refer to "dictator" as someone who hasn't been democratically elected. Trump was democratically elected. Putin is disputable because of their electoral processes. But Kim Jong Un and Xi Jinping almost certainly aren't 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:A07E:C417:53D:B5C0 (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
"Dictator" has more to do with the exercise of authoritarian control of government and over the life of a country's citizens than it has do with how someone has come to the office. I challenge you to find any source that defines "dictator" as "someone not democratically elected". General Ization Talk 13:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

"Got on hands and knees and begged"

The Sydney Morning Herald and other news outlets worldwide are reporting that Kim Jong Un "Got on hands and knees and begged" for Summit, citing Giuliani (https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/kim-jong-un-got-on-hands-and-knees-and-begged-for-summit-giuliani-20180607-p4zjxi.html). Should this be included? Because this makes it seem like the "Supreme Leader" of North Korea is subservient to a negotiator for the USA 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:A07E:C417:53D:B5C0 (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Har-har! Good one. All joking aside, whatever coverage comes out of the talks will probably be included in due time with due weight (remember Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS). Not only is the whole "on hands and knees" business not encyclopedic language, it's still premature to talk about this when the talks haven't even happened yet. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Romanization

Why is the name romanized in a way that seems to go counter to Revised Romanization? ㅡ is eu in RR. In the older system, used by North Korea, it is ŭ . Neither one normally transcribes it as u.87.247.51.148 (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

North Korea romanises it as Kim Jong Un.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Jong_Un/Archive_7&oldid=1149754400"